This editorial explores some methodological difficulties that might be faced by the practice of the critique of international criminal law (ICL). It more particularly explores what it might mean to do an ‘internal’ critique of ICL, both on a disciplinary level and an intra-disciplinary level. The editorial also addresses two important issues: (i) the ambiguities of the normative agendas of critical legal scholars; and (ii) the difficulty of dialogue between critical legal scholars and positivists. The editorial concludes with the fact that while disciplinary dialogue might not always be possible, it will always take place on a personal, more complex level, in the Leiden Journal of International Law (LJIL) as elsewhere.

In the summer of 2014 I attended a conference panel on international lawyers as public intellectuals. The academics on the panel talked about their twitter accounts, their blogs, their occasional radio and television appearances, and their opinion-editorials in major newspapers. The discussion really focused not on whether international lawyers should be public intellectuals, but on how they can do so, and what the ramifications of such public engagement can be. What struck me most, however, was a notable omission: no one on the panel or in the audience mentioned books as a medium through which public international lawyers might reach a mass audience. In reflecting on this omission I realized that academics in this field do not, for the most part, write books for a general readership. To the extent that public international lawyers reach a mass audience at all, they have chosen do so through other means – with some exceptions.

Taking up the torch from my fellow co-editors who have addressed substantive and methodological issues of international criminal law (ICL) in their contributions, I propose to turn to the current state and prospects of its scholarship. The moment is opportune for such a reflection. The questions raised by the production and dissemination of international legal scholarship were the leitmotif of past editorials and its (changing) role was chosen as the theme of the latest LJIL symposium. The professional functions of international legal scholars have been the subject of renewed interest and debate. To give an impulse to a similar debate in ICL, I will try to capture the zeitgeist of its academia and offer some observations on the positioning of scholarship vis-à-vis practice in ICL. Perspectives from this specialized field may enrich the existing conceptualizations of international legal scholarship and provide a new angle on its place within the profession.

Questions about methodology are questions of disciplinary identity. It is thus not surprising that they provoke such heated debates. The state of methodological debates is indicative of the condition of a discipline. If those debates advance to the centre of attention within any specific field of scholarly practice, it typically indicates a moment of crisis or – less dramatically – a push for change. In other times of relative stability, questions of methodology tend to stay on the margins of the field. Scholarly practice goes about its routine business along well-established lines. It uses the tools of a discipline without further ado.

The ‘rule of law’ is a concept at the very heart of the United Nations (UN) mission declared its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. What does the concept mean internationally? The paper considers its role in international adjudication; in the UN more generally; in terms of the acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ); the difference between thick and thin definitions of the concept; equality before the law; the requirement of clarity and certainty by reference to interpretation of treaties and maritime delimitation; compliance by Governments with international law; and the peaceful settlement of international disputes; and concludes with the importance of personal qualities and professional qualities.

The New Legal Realist approach to international law builds from a jurisprudential tradition that asks how actors use and apply law in order to understand how law obtains meaning, is practised, and changes over time. The article addresses the jurisprudential roots of the New Legal Realism, its core attributes, and six important components in the current transnational context. In the pragmatist tradition, the New Legal Realism is both empirical and problem-centred, attending to both context and legal normativity. What is new is the rise of transnational activity that gives rise to an enlarged scope of transnational problem-solving through international law in radically new ways across areas of law, and the growth of empirical study of these phenomena. The article concludes by addressing the potential risks of the New Legal Realist approach in terms of scientism and relativism, and it responds to them.

This article examines the question of state succession to bilateral treaties. It analyses the work of the International Law Commission undertaken in the 1970s and criticizes the solutions it has adopted in the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties for different types of state succession. I will argue that it is incoherent for the ILC to apply, on the one hand, the solution of automatic continuity for bilateral treaties in the context of secession and dissolution of states, while adopting, on the other hand, the solution of tabula rasa for Newly Independent States. In any event, it is plainly unjustifiable to apply the principle of automatic continuity to bilateral treaties. Thus, while the tabula rasa principle was adopted by the ILC for multilateral treaties to protect Newly Independent States’ right to self-determination, the same solution was chosen for bilateral treaties for different reasons. The rule of tabula rasa was adopted because of the particular nature of bilateral treaties and the basic requirement that the other party to an original treaty must consent to the continuation of that treaty with a Newly Independent State. There are simply no logical reasons as to why the tabula rasa principle adopted for Newly Independent States should not also find application for all new states. Bilateral treaties do not automatically continue to be in force as of the date of succession unless both states that are implicated explicitly (or tacitly) agree to such a continuation.

As international law is widening in regulatory scope and intensity, it arguably suffers from a legitimacy deficit. This article conceives of this deficit as a deficit in possibilities to politicize, criticize, and contest international law-making proposals in the way a loyal opposition does in a domestic constitutional context: through the representation of relevant societal interests, the voicing of critique, and the safeguarding of alternative proposals for the future. The author of this article tries to bring together the current debate in political theory on the value of legitimate disagreement and dissent in political institutions and the ongoing discussion on the legitimacy of international law. Therefore, a concept of an institutionalized opposition for international law-making processes is developed, referencing authors such as Hannah Arendt and Claude Lefort. Next, the author analyses whether one can already find instances of an institutionalized opposition in international law – in parliamentary assemblies and in international agreements which are designed to present a legal–political counterweight to specific legal concepts and institutions.

The judiciary’s counter-majoritarian role in the realm of national security is of paramount importance. By and large the Israel Supreme Court has taken cognizance of this truism and has imposed significant procedural and substantive restrictions on the Israeli military authorities, relying more and more on public international law. Yet when faced with house demolition measures, it has adopted a different stance, preferring to conduct a judicial review which is devoid of any meaningful scrutiny of the measures according to international law. The article attempts to ascertain the reasons for the Court's different judicial position, by advancing, inter alia, legal, historical, socio-political, and personal reasons, reasons relating to the nature of the petitioners, as well as those pertaining to the intertwined concepts of status quo bias, omission bias, and loss aversion. The findings of the case study may be relevant to other courts, in other countries. When faced with deterrent measures that are employed at times of severe security threats and that are strongly supported by the political establishment and by the public, courts may find it difficult to perform a counter-majoritarian role and to abide by their own judicial doctrines and principles.

International law remains in many ways a challenge to legal science. As in domestic law, the available options appear to be exhausted by either internal doctrinal approaches, or external approaches applying more general empirical methods from the social sciences. This article claims that, while these major positions obviously provide interesting insights, none of them manage to make international law intelligible in a broader sense. Instead, it argues for a European New Legal Realist approach to international law accommodating the so-called external and internal dimensions of law in a single more complex analysis which takes legal validity seriously but as a genuinely empirical object of study. This article constructs this position by identifying a distinctively European realist path which takes as its primary inspirations Weberian sociology of law and Alf Ross’ Scandinavian Legal Realism and combines them with insights originating from Bourdieusian sociology of law.

This article evaluates the benefits of a ‘turn to narration’ in international legal scholarship. It argues that significant attention should be paid to the narrators who employ international law as a vocabulary to further their professional projects. Theories of unreliable narration help map consensus within international law's interpretive community in a manner that is acutely sensitive to point of view and perspective. The article examines the existence and extent of unreliable narration through a case study: the practice of targeted killing by the Obama administration in the United States. The struggle for control of the narrative, by narrators with different professional roles and cognitive frames, is ultimately a struggle for interpretive power, with the resulting ability to ‘kill or capture’ divergent narrative visions. Unreliable narration offers a critical heuristic for assessing how narratives are generated, sustained, and called into question in international law, while fostering reflexive inquiry about international law as a professional discipline.

Both state-centrism and Eurocentrism are under challenge in international law today. This article argues that this double challenge is mirrored back into the study of the history of international law. It examines the effects of the rise of positivism as a method of norm-identification and the role of methodological nationalism upon the study of the history of international law in the modern foundational period of international law. It extends this by examining how this bequeathed a double exclusionary bias regarding time and space to the study of the history of international law as well as a reiterative focus on a series of canonical events and authors to the exclusion of others such as those related to the Islamic history of international law. It then analyses why this state of historiographical affairs is changing, highlighting intra-disciplinary developments within the field of the history of international law and the effects that the ‘international turn in the writing of history’ is having on the writing of a new history of international law for a global age. It concludes with a reflection on some of the tasks ahead, providing a series of historiographical signposts for the history of international law as a field of new research.

From a due process perspective, the essential problem with the UN Security Council's targeted sanctions regime is the persistent lack of sufficient access to confidential material relied upon for the designation of targeted individuals. Despite the Security Council's efforts to amend the procedures of the sanctions regime, it is highly unlikely that this deficiency can ever be remedied within its present top-down structure. Therefore, this article proposes to decentralize the regime's designation procedure, to mitigate the problem of being unable to challenge or review confidential information and evidence, which underlies an individual's designation. Such an amendment would entail that the designation of a particular individual and the possible subsequent judicial review procedure would take place domestically, prior to a universal blacklisting by the UN Sanctions Committee. As a consequence, any confidential material relied upon could stay within the designating state, and would be shared only with courts and possibly special security-cleared advocates, within that domestic legal order. This would make it more acceptable for the relevant authorities to make such information available.

In this article, I suggest that one of the central characteristics of New Legal Realism is the productive tension between empiricist and pragmatist theories of knowledge which lies at its core. On one side, new realist work in its empiricist posture seeks to use empirical knowledge of the world as the basis on which to design, interpret, apply, and criticize the law. On the other, in its pragmatist moments, it explicitly draws attention to the social and political contingency of any claims to empirical knowledge of the world, including its own. As a consequence, it is distinctive of much scholarship in the New Legal Realist vein that it continually enacts creative syntheses of different philosophies of truth in an attempt to be, in Shaffer's words, ‘positivist . . . interpretivist, and legal realist all at once’. The first part of this article draws on existing historical accounts of legal realism briefly to trace the problematic and ambiguous place of scientism in the legal realist tradition. Then, in the second and more important part of the article, I argue that the ambivalence of the legal realists’ vision has left us, in certain contexts, with a complicated form of mixed legal-scientific governance which has proved remarkably and surprisingly resilient in the face of late twentieth century critiques of scientific objectivity. This may be one of the most enduring legacies of the ‘old’ legal realists for those today who work in the New Legal Realist vein.

This article shows how the political, historical, sociological, and economic narrative of Ibn Khaldun influenced the conjunction of elements that were essential to the civilizing language promoted by European and American liberals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The ‘standard of civilization’ has experienced a revival among critical legal scholars. These authors have reconstructed a historical process of ‘rise, fall, and rise’ of the ‘standard of civilization’, identifying its reappearance in an era of globalization and global governance with the current existence of a (neo-)colonial paradigm in international law and a (neo-)liberal global economy. This study is divided into three parts intended to examine in depth the precursory role of this Islamic thinker in the shaping of civilizing language. The first part examines Ibn Khaldun's life as a way of understanding his thinking on civilization. The second part explores the influence of Ibn Khaldun's work on the discourse surrounding the standard of civilization, by reintroducing the interpretation of Rafael Altamira (1866–1951). The third starts with Ibn Khaldun's writings on economic science and Joseph Spengler's (1902–1991) approach to his works. Several Islamic economic institutions and their influence on the state and concept of international society are examined. The revival of Ibn Khaldun's thinking is partly intended to fill an existing gap in the studies of medieval Islamic theorists. By examining his ideas about the socio-political and economic viability of a dynasty (or a civilization or a state), this article attempts to shed light on the intercultural origins of international law.

The United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is expected to play an essential role in delineating the rights of the Arctic states to seabed resources in the Arctic Ocean. In this article, the authors look to the effect of scientific discourse on Commission authority. The authors argue that in addition to the conferral of its authority by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Commission draws its authority in the Arctic from the way its regulatory frameworks, aimed at containing or closing off disputes about jurisdiction and sovereign rights, correlate with discursive practices used by transnational networks to reach scientific agreement.

This article considers the law of maritime delimitation as applied by the Arbitral Tribunal in the 2014 Bangladesh v. India case. The dispute concerned the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two states in the north-eastern part of the Bay of Bengal. The Tribunal's Award covers several important issues which require careful examination, such as the land boundary terminus, the delimitation methodology, the role of objectivity, predictability and transparency in maritime delimitation, and the impact of the established case law on the present delimitation procedures. The commentary analyses the Award from the viewpoint of the law of maritime delimitation and traces how the Tribunal applied and developed the methodology used in maritime delimitation. The key points where the Award advances the law of the sea concern the concavity of the coast as a relevant circumstance and the creation of grey area. The Tribunal made significant pronouncements on the continental shelf, especially, beyond 200 nm. It confirmed the concept of a single continental shelf and reasoned that legal regimes of the EEZ and the continental shelf are independent and separable. However, the creation of another grey area met with strong disagreement from Dr Rao. The author considers the Award and the Dissenting Opinion to argue that the adjustment of the equidistance line raises certain concerns and that the creation of grey area is permissible under UNCLOS.

The judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 11 November 2013, interpreting its 1962 judgment in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, inspires a reconsideration of the role of interpretation proceedings pursuant to Article 60 of the Statute of the Court. In particular, it invites us to take a closer look at the role and scope of the principle of res judicata in public international law in general and as considered in the case law of the Court in particular. This contribution reveals the competing concepts of the principle in interpretation and consecutive original contentious proceedings, and promotes instead a uniform concept that avoids the conflict inherent in current approaches.

Section 1 introduces Article 60 of the ICJ Statute (section 1.1.) and thereinafter views interpretation proceedings before the Court in light of the Court's case law, in particular its 2013 interpretation judgment in the Temple case (section 1.2.). Section 2 constitutes the heart of the analysis and discusses what will be identified as the competing concepts of res judicata. Section 2.1. presents the functions, concepts, and case law of res judicata in public international law in general, whereas section 2.2. focuses specifically on the case law of the ICJ and the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in this regard. Finally, section 2.3. concludes this study by setting out the approach that the author regards as appropriate to reconcile the competing concepts of res judicata.

Current endeavours to develop a ‘realistic’ concept of international law should take into account that there is not only one reality. It does not suffice to admit that reality can be perceived from different angles. Rather, a realistic account of modern society has to acknowledge that we can no longer speak of the ‘world’ or ‘reality’ as a singular entity. Perspectives matter; they construct their own, distinct objects of cognition. A ‘New Legal Realism’ is deliberately new, legal, and realistic only insofar as it is conceived as an understanding of how (international) law creates its own realities.

This article argues that human rights law – which mediates between claims about universal human nature, on the one hand, and hard-fought political battles, on the other – is in particular need of a richer exchange between jurisprudential approaches and social science theory and methods. Using the example of the Inter-American Human Rights System, the article calls for more human rights scholarship with a new realist sensibility. It demonstrates in what ways legal and social science scholarship on human rights law both stand to improve through sustained, thoughtful exchange.